The foundation of truth...

We’re all trying to figure out a gob of gunk, as the world throws at us what it thinks we should think. But, how do we determine which voices to listen too? What is that foundation we rest upon where we declare, “This is my authority as to where I determine what I see as true?”

Being a philosophy/theology major (because I wanted to go through life having people ask me what I would do to make money), I learned of two camps of two authoritarian foundations: the rationalist and the empiricists. 

Rationalists start with the idea that within in ourselves, there are the tools necessary to discover truth. Simply stated, as a rationalist one would say, “It makes sense to me, so so-and-so is true.” Again, very simply stated. In our core, we hold many things as true, just because they make sense…to us at least. Descartes, the father of modern philosophy, was a rationalist. He began his philosophy with the idea of radical doubt. He asked,”What is one truth, where one can’t possibly get me to doubt it as true.” He considered all his perceptions, and asked, “What if a crazy demon is playing a trick on me?” Clearly, such philosophical questions have been played around within movies: The Matrix in particular. 


Throughout all this radical doubt, if he could find an objection to a statement, no matter how crazy, he determined he couldn’t know for sure if it was true. He discovered one true… One irrefutable truth. Thus the saying was born, “I think, therefore, I am.” He determined the only truth he could know for sure was that he existed. (He couldn’t know for sure others truly existed.) The fact that he was a reasoning, perceiving being let him know he existed. He may not have existed in the form he perceived himself as existing, but he knew he existed nonetheless. Such a truth, he knew came via reason. Thus, he declared reason to be the foundational format upon which we derive truth. Ultimately, rationalists believe that in order to determine truth, we have to apply our reason as the driving force. 

But then there is the empiricists. They believe truth can only be determined through our experiences. (Caveat: I’m not saying rationalists think experience is unimportant, or empiricists believe reason is unimportant. Just that one group prioritizes the other.) Thus, the foundational element upon which we derive truth is experience. I.e. we have to touch, feel, see, smell, taste, or in some other way perceive truth in order to declare it to be true. An empiricist will argue just because something is reasonable, doesn’t make it true. For example, I could say there is $1000 dollars in my wallet, and give a number of reasons why it is so, but that doesn’t mean it is true. (If only.) We can’t declare it true unless we first open it and look inside. 

Sure, some experiences are more valid than others, but that’s where empiricists speak of empirical evidence, as in if I declare something sounds reasonable, I must then test out these ideas in order to declare they are true. And, ideally these tests should be repeatable.

So, when tackling one of those crazy voices that are trying to convince us of something, what is our go to response? Do we say? “Hmm. Does that make sense? Perhaps I should compare it with other things I know to be reasonable, and make such a determination?” But, when you break it down, doesn't everyone think what they think is reasonable? A rationalist might say if more people would simply do more and deeper thinking, we’d be more unified. Perhaps. But, such a statement might be construed as insulting. 

Or in the midst of challenging ideas, do we follow the empirical path, and say, “Well, that fits (or doesn’t) the experience I’ve had, so I’ll believe it.” Yet, again don’t we all come to the table with various experience? An empiricist might suggest, that in order to grab a concept of truth, we have to immerse ourselves in more experiences… Or, at least closely examine the carefully documented experiences of others. 

But, when I break both down, I’ve got issues with with using either as the foundational criteria upon which we derive truth. The problem is there are gobs of things that seem reasonable, even contradictory things, if I break down certain elements (perhaps because I’m not that bright). But they can’t all be true (unless you’re a postmodernist--possibly an unfair generalization, I’m just not a postmodernist). Yet, also there are tons of things that we as humans have never experienced, that could possibly be true. Before people had experienced the earth was round (or did the calculations to make such determinations), was it still not round? Or, what of the metaphysical realities? How can via experience, we declare them to either exist or not exist?

Yet, I think there is a third school of thought. One I primarily ascribe to. A better way (in my experience and reason). I’ll speak about it next week.